Page 58 of 61 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 602

Thread: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

  1. #571
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    What? These "special rights" are simply the way it has always been interpreted. By going against that tradition and precedent randomly it is turning the constitution into mere guidelines and an excellent example of the arbitrary power of judicial activism.

    In another thread you were complaining about the US not upholding its constitution?
    What? Are you saying that the constitution even mentions heterosexuality?

    The tradition argument is meaningless. America has hundreds of cultures within its own borders now, all with different traditions. There are already thousands of churches that can and do marry gay people, the only difference is whether or not the state chooses to acknowledge that marriage with the social benefits. The marriage itself already exists.

    If my tax dollars are dolling out benefits to married people (which I already think is wrong, for the record), then I want guarantees that the alotted benefits are given out in a non-discriminatory fashion. If straight people are getting my tax dollars, then I want the gays to get them too. None of this elitist, traditional, la-dee-da hoopla about the constitution which has no basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Except you know it existed for centuries and that is how it was always interpreted in Iowa. Your argument makes little sense mate.
    The existence of a tradition and the existence of rights are two different things. I'm talking about the law. You are talking about some fantastical interpretation of who has the "right" to marry according to tradition. Anyone can get married right now... gay people can and do get married regardless if they receive benefits or not. The only thing this debate is central to is which married people get access to the social benefits of government. For that, you must defer to state constitutions, none of which mention that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    That is, until state legislations created a new right for heterosexuals that didn't exist before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    That is a different issue of course, it is not the judiciary wielding arbitrary power and destroying the constitution. I'm sure many would be a lot happier, although they'd still oppose it, if the gay rights campaigners went down that route rather one so destructive as judicial activism.
    It's not judical activism to acknowledge a negative... in this case, that the Iowa state constitution makes no mention of which sexual orientation has the explicit right to marry. That amendment must be added, thereby creating a new right or a positive affirmation. That is judical activism.

  2. #572
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    What? Are you saying that the constitution even mentions heterosexuality?
    Oh come on, it is how it has always been inteprteted and certainly how the FF's intepreted the idea of marriage.

    The tradition argument is meaningless. America has hundreds of cultures within its own borders now, all with different traditions. There are already thousands of churches that can and do marry gay people, the only difference is whether or not the state chooses to acknowledge that marriage with the social benefits. The marriage itself already exists.
    Firstly America still has firstly an Anglo-Saxon culture with others only on top. Secondly none of those cultures accept gay marriage and thirdly that we are talking about the law as much as anything else and that certainly has intepreted it in tradition and precendent as heterosexual to try and suggest anything else is silly, tradition is very meaningful here, as always.
    If my tax dollars are dolling out benefits to married people (which I already think is wrong, for the record), then I want guarantees that the alotted benefits are given out in a non-discriminatory fashion.
    We're not American, that ain't our problem.
    If straight people are getting my tax dollars, then I want the gays to get them too. None of this elitist, traditional, la-dee-da hoopla about the constitution which has no basis.
    I want the the rule of law in my land not to give way to arbitrary power so libs don't feel people are being discriminated against but maybe I'm just way out there.



    The existence of a tradition and the existence of rights are two different things. I'm talking about the law. You are talking about some fantastical interpretation of who has the "right" to marry according to tradition.
    No we're talking about written constitutions, unless they are intepreted strictly and originally they become mere guidelines and disolve.

    But anyway I don't have much time for completely abstract rights. i'm no complete subjectivist or nihilist, I recognise men have some sort of natural rights, a very Christian concept, but these are intepreted historically, according to convention. To talk of natural rights outside society, history, tradition is nonsense.

    To quote Burke.

    If civil society be the offspring of convention, that convention must be its law. That convention must limit and modify all the descriptions of constitution which are formed under it. Every sort of legislative, judicial, or executory power are its creatures. They can have no being in any other state of things; and how can any man claim under the conventions of civil society rights which do not so much as suppose its existence rights which are absolutely repugnant to it?.......Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it, and exist in much greater clearness and in a much greater degree of abstract perfection; but their abstract perfection is their practical defect.

    Anyone can get married right now... gay people can and do get married regardless if they receive benefits or not. The only thing this debate is central to is which married people get access to the social benefits of government. For that, you must defer to state constitutions, none of which mention that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    So? They have laws that were made for and have always been intepreted for marriage between men and women. To randomly redefine this is to undermine the rule of law and to give in to arbitrary power just because you fancy the ends of you dubious means.
    That is, until state legislations created a new right for heterosexuals that didn't exist before.
    Legislatures are a whole different argument.



    It's not judical activism to acknowledge a negative... in this case, that the Iowa state constitution makes no mention of which sexual orientation has the explicit right to marry.
    It is called precedent. When interpreting what constitutions mean you need to take account of the original meaning and precedent. That is the larger part of tradition in this meaning.

    That amendment must be added, thereby creating a new right or a positive affirmation. That is judical activism.


    Ignoring the inaccuracy of the rest of your argument it is worth pointing out that the judiciary does not add amend
    the constitution. That would need the legislature.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 04-11-09 at 10:55 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #573
    Student YamiB.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Seen
    08-14-09 @ 01:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    261

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Coolguy View Post
    The problem resided in recognition. Not with the union itself.
    If Civil Unions had the same 'rights' and privileges guaranteed. There would be no problem.

    To obtain recognition through the usurpation of the term marriage, is the wrong way to go.
    Why? The definition of marriage has changed multiple times throughout history why can it not change again in this case? Why is this preferable to completely destroying the legal term of marriage?

    I am not big on states rights when it comes to the treatment of the people as a whole. That is when I believe the Fed has a duty to step in and make law.
    It seems like you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I said that there is no proof that civil unions would be much more effective than pushing for same-sex marriage because opponents of same-sex marriage have also banned civil unions.

    Not at all.
    They both receive a Contract of Union, same gender couples get to call theirs a Civil Union and opposite gender couples get to call theirs a Marriage.
    Same recognition, but different in name only because of the difference in the genders involved.
    Separate but equal is an inherently flawed idea, unless an actual reason can be given for separate institutions then there should not be separate institutions.

    Like said: "I find it funny that the homosexual community wants to be respected, but in turn, show great disrespect in their attempted efforts to get there."
    I find it disrespectful for people to stand in the way of equality because they think that protecting the current definition of a term which has had it's definition changed various times is more important.

    It is very disrespectful for the homosexual community to try and usurp the term.
    Why, it has changed multiple times in the past. Was it disrespectful for interracial couples to push to be included in marriage instead of getting civil unions?

    Yep, marriage used to be a contract of ownership rather than union.
    But historically, and for the vast majority of all occurrences, it has always been between a man and a woman.
    A few occurrences of same gender unions usurping the term Marriage does not supplant what it means, or shows that it has changed.
    That doesn't change that it has had different meanings in the past. Why does this specific change cause problems as compared to the other ones?

    You ask in what relevant way.
    What may be relevant to some may not be relevant to others.
    The main difference though was stated.
    Different gender versus same gender. That clearly isn't the same.
    [/QUOTE]

    They're not the same, but you never said how the gender of people in the marriage is in any way relevant to the marriage. Until you show how it is relevant that it will be as irrelevant as race, religion, and political affiliation are for getting married.

    Sorry for the long wait in a reply, I have been busy.
    I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
    -Douglas Adams

    "It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things that are not so."
    -Felix Okoye

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    -Aristotle

  4. #574
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Oh come on, it is how it has always been inteprteted and certainly how the FF's intepreted the idea of marriage.
    I had no idea that the FF had this interpretation of marriage... which is odd since polygamy was in practice in the Americas before, during and after the Revolution.

    Could you quote the FF on this subject and provide links to sources? Thanks.

    Firstly America still has firstly an Anglo-Saxon culture with others only on top.
    So? Is that argument an appeal to the popular? Which as you know is a logical fallacy.

    Secondly none of those cultures accept gay marriage
    So? see above.

    and thirdly that we are talking about the law as much as anything else and that certainly has intepreted it in tradition and precendent as heterosexual to try and suggest anything else is silly, tradition is very meaningful here, as always.
    So nothing should ever be changed due to its tradition? Welp, I guess we can get rid of womens suffrage... and the list is too long to start here. The idea of marriage as some tradition is ridiculous considering changes in it over the centuries.

    We're not American, that ain't our problem.
    Wait, are you talking about marriage in Europe? WTF?

    I want the the rule of law in my land not to give way to arbitrary power so libs don't feel people are being discriminated against but maybe I'm just way out there.
    Yeah, considering that you thing discrimination is just a liberal "feeling".

    So? They have laws that were made for and have always been intepreted for marriage between men and women. To randomly redefine this is to undermine the rule of law and to give in to arbitrary power just because you fancy the ends of you dubious means.
    There were plenty of laws concerning womens suffrage, slavery, civil rights... you're making poor arguments based on your emotion.

  5. #575
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    I had no idea that the FF had this interpretation of marriage... which is odd since polygamy was in practice in the Americas before, during and after the Revolution.

    Could you quote the FF on this subject and provide links to sources? Thanks.
    Nope, it is common knlwledge. I see no reason to jump through your hoops.

    So? Is that argument an appeal to the popular? Which as you know is a logical fallacy.
    What are you talking about? We aren't talking about the existence of god or some absolute truth, we are talking about human laws and culture. If you're going to learn logical fallacies, at least learn when they should be used.

    We are talking about how marriage has beenn defined in order to show this decision by judges breaks with precedent and tradition hence meaning it breaks with the rule of law and is an example of judicial activism; arbitrary power. The fact that America's main tradition is the Angl-Saxon one is perfectly relevant here.



    So nothing should ever be changed due to its tradition? Welp, I guess we can get rid of womens suffrage... and the list is too long to start here. The idea of marriage as some tradition is ridiculous considering changes in it over the centuries.
    What are you talking about again? We are talking about the judiciary which operate oin tradition and precedent because that is what the rule of law requires.p The rule of law is to provide gov't of law instead of men and if the judiciary does not abide by it then it goes outside its branch of gov't and also weilds arbitrary, unacountable power.


    Wait, are you talking about marriage in Europe? WTF?
    I was talking to Orius.


    Yeah, considering that you thing discrimination is just a liberal "feeling".
    And you considerabitrary power, that blight on all goverance, is a good thing when it fulfils your objectives it seems. That is why liberals can be so dangerous.

    There were plenty of laws concerning womens suffrage, slavery, civil rights... you're making poor arguments based on your emotion.
    Wtf? You're the one who is not making actual arguments but attempting to mention emotional topics in order to try and sway me.

    I would almost(absolutes perhaps not for the realm of men.)never countenance the arbitrary power of judicial activism, no matter what the situation.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #576
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    04-14-09 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Isn't the idea of "same sex marriage" a contradiction in terms? Our entire collective historical, cultural, and legal concept of marriage is that of an opposite sex union. A man and woman are transformed into husband and wife. The language of marriage speaks of the male female sexual relationship. They consumate the relationship, engage in marital relations, beget children, etc. Even those couples who cannot nor choose not to consumate thier relationship, or have children, can still accept each other as husband and wife. How in that sense can a same sex couple marry?

  7. #577
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    What? Are you saying that the constitution even mentions heterosexuality?

    The tradition argument is meaningless. America has hundreds of cultures within its own borders now, all with different traditions. There are already thousands of churches that can and do marry gay people, the only difference is whether or not the state chooses to acknowledge that marriage with the social benefits. The marriage itself already exists.

    If my tax dollars are dolling out benefits to married people (which I already think is wrong, for the record), then I want guarantees that the alotted benefits are given out in a non-discriminatory fashion. If straight people are getting my tax dollars, then I want the gays to get them too. None of this elitist, traditional, la-dee-da hoopla about the constitution which has no basis.



    The existence of a tradition and the existence of rights are two different things. I'm talking about the law. You are talking about some fantastical interpretation of who has the "right" to marry according to tradition. Anyone can get married right now... gay people can and do get married regardless if they receive benefits or not. The only thing this debate is central to is which married people get access to the social benefits of government. For that, you must defer to state constitutions, none of which mention that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    That is, until state legislations created a new right for heterosexuals that didn't exist before.



    It's not judical activism to acknowledge a negative... in this case, that the Iowa state constitution makes no mention of which sexual orientation has the explicit right to marry. That amendment must be added, thereby creating a new right or a positive affirmation. That is judical activism.
    1. Please list which cultures which promote homosexual marriages.
    2. Please list these thousands of churches that perform homosexual marriages.
    3. Ah, so we finally get to the crux of the issue....BENEFITS. This isn't at all about gays wanting to form families like straight people. It's about taxes and benefits.

    FINALLY THE LEFT ADMITS WHAT WE ALWAYS REALLY KNEW.
    Last edited by American; 04-13-09 at 10:52 PM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #578
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    [*]Please list which cultures which promote homosexual marriages.
    No. But I will say that I am Canadian, and I support same sex marriage. As does my Federal government. Britain allows same sex marriage, as does France. There's three cultures right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    [*]Please list these thousands of churches that perform homosexual marriages.
    This is an unreasonable request... but there are plenty of universal churches that can and do.

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    [*]Ah, so we finally get to the crux of the issue....BENEFITS. This isn't at all about gays wanting to form families like straight people. It's about taxes and benefits.
    The benefits allow gay families to become stronger by receiving state support. Either everyone gets it, or no one gets it, that is my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    FINALLY THE LEFT ADMITS WHAT WE ALWAYS REALLY KNEW.
    That anti-gay marriage activists are actively trying to create a new discriminatory right for themselves in law that never existed before? Yep, that's exactly what the left is telling you.

    P.S. I am not a liberal, so kindly STFU.

  9. #579
    Advisor Unrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-01-13 @ 02:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    448

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    There should be no such thing as state-recognized (including federally recognized) marriage. There should be no legal institution for 'marriage' in the first place.

  10. #580
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrein View Post
    There should be no such thing as state-recognized (including federally recognized) marriage. There should be no legal institution for 'marriage' in the first place.
    Hmmm you sound like someone who may actually have the right idea!

    I agree 100%
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 58 of 61 FirstFirst ... 8485657585960 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •